(Continued.) This all sounds somewhat ominous. Given that the oceans are storing up energy, so to speak, and delaying any real onset of warming, to me there would seem to be one of two outcomes.

1) Eventually, an irreversible steady and unstoppable rise in global temps. will 'kick in,' but it will be far too late for us to ameliorate the consequences.

2) Far far worse, a trigger point, when reached, may spark a very severe and rapid rise in global temps, which could have devestating consequences for us.

A couple of the facts quoted in the article. He recognises the research into the decline in the suns output, and that this has caused a lowering of estimates. But he finishes with a flourish by stating that - the growth of Arctic Winter ice this year is the all time fastest on record! He also mentions that Cabnadian archeologists have been uncovering evidence that that the Arctic ice cover shrank to half its current extent during a warm period, 7,000 years ago.

I'd be interested to hear what your ,take' is Mac, on how things currently stand?

P.S. Excuse all the typo's - I'm having computer problems and timing out .

Another way to look at this is to embrace global warming. It will be over a hundred years until we see any significant effects. Venice was built during a very cold period. Their glory days followed the dark ages when the earth was just getting warm again.

CHANGE BUILDING CODES..sea levels have risen 7.7 inches in the past 135 years. I assume this will continue for a while. The usful life of most buildings is less than 100 years. Plan for a future increase in sea levels.

As for New Orleans, what kind of fool would build anything below sea level.....? The fool who borrows his money from an idiot, our government.

GT--I studied numerical methods in graduate school, including a rigorous bout with modeling mathematics in modeling to have an idea about how to set up complicated models for engineering questions. I'm glad I was able to do other things; modeling is pretty boring. But my eduation prepared me to have a healthy respect, and healthy reservations, about modeling. We cannot possibly anticipate all of the factors, and while we may be confident about the underlying physics, we generally develop constants empirically. I've watched models improve dramatically in the past twenty years, and I have used them (developed by people with skills far greater than my own) with a reasonable amount of confidence to make decisions about circulation and sediment movement in San Francisco Bay. But my reservations are that they are most useful for comparisons, and only as good as the underlying data and quality of scientific work necessary to validate them.

I have never had a tremendous amount of confidence in global warming/temperature prediction models for 3 reasons. First, there are two confounding factors that we are aware of: the ocean absorbs CO2, and increased CO2 increases cloud cover. So far as I know, none of the models up to the middle of the last decade accounted for these factors. We can see that ocean acid levels are going up, almost certainly because of increased atmospheric CO2, and some modelers are presumably making pretty good calculations of mass balances, and eventually models will account for that, and gradually get better. Cloud cover? I'm not aware of any cutting edge work that is developing ways to account for it, but I'm not a day-to-day scientist either.

The other reason that I lack confidence in models is that some of the early modelers in the US--Jim Titus and Hansen--were rather alarmist. It is obvious that I think scientists should participate in the political dialogue, but I think that they need to be very careful kin distinguishing between what we know and what we suspect, and some aren't.

With that said, there are very clear signs of climate change, a more accurate term than global warming. We are seeing signs of changes in ecological assemblages as cold-sensitive communities move both northward and up mountain. We are seeing far greater chaos in the weather patterns everywhere, one of the key predictions of the modelers. It is a very big deal in California, which relies on snow pack for much of our water supply storage, and nobody with any scientific credibility doubts change--or claims they know exactly where it is going.

Finally, there is a lot of noise from boosters and deniers about the rather small changes in average annual temperature over the last 15 years. There has certainly been a change, and it is upward, and sea level continues to rise. Neither have seen the rapid acceleration that some modelers predicted, but it is a short time period--about 10% of the total temperature record, and an inherently chaotic process, so I don't think that anyone knows what it really means yet. We are finding signs of melting in glaciers, particularly in Greenland, that give some credence to the fears of scientists that land-based melting could occur, leading to dramatic sea level rise. But we don't know if those are new phenomena, because we've just started looking in detail.

I wouldn't buy coastal property hoping to create a trust for my grandchildren.

I thought I would celebrate the opening of "Greedy Lying Bastards", an apt title for the carbon boys and their flacks, by highlighting the news from Science magazine, also in this morning's paper.

Quote:

WASHINGTON) ó A new study looking at 11,000 years of climate temperatures shows the world in the middle of a dramatic U-turn, lurching from near-record cooling to a heat spike.

Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures back to the end of the last ice age. It shows how the globe for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.

Scientists say it is further evidence that modern-day global warming isnít natural, but the result of rising carbon dioxide emissions that have rapidly grown since the Industrial Revolution began roughly 250 years ago.

The decade of 1900 to 1910 was one of the coolest in the past 11,300 years ó cooler than 95 percent of the other years, the marine fossil data suggest. Yet 100 years later, the decade of 2000 to 2010 was one of the warmest, said study lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University. Global thermometer records only go back to 1880, and those show the last decade was the hottest for this more recent time period.

Mac. I believe that global warming (climate change to be precise) is real, but there once again appears to be conflicting reports of evidence.

1) The Canadian archeologists who uncovered evidence that the Arctic ice cover shrank to half its current extent 7,000 years ago, during a WARMER climatic phase.

2) This latest quoted research which claims that the climate was COOLING for several thousand years before an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.

I'm more inclined to accept the first evidence, at least with regard to the Northern Hemisphere, since it sits more clearly with historical records. There was a thriving permanent settlement in Greenland (actual, not anecdotal) long before the 20th century where non could exist today, despite the claimed unprecedented warming.

Who funded this latest research, and what was their remit? Most of us have learned to be somewhat sceptical of presented evidence which fits so neatly into the global warming industry mantra.

Is there a global warming industry? There are plenty of scientists doing paid study. The carbon companies have a LOT.
The independents college grants etc. seem to report conclusions on both sides, but the carbon guys only seem to published on one side of the politics.
Data supporting climate change would seem to be much more profitable if it denies a human caused warming trend.

K C Yes, I believe ther to be a global warming 'industry' (make that religion) over here. We have seen a few scandals connected with it! But to stick to this latest research, over which I have two misgivings.

1) They claim the 20th century warming to be unprecedented. (Dictionary definition, without precedent; unparalleled.) To take a single precedent; the Middle Ages Northern European so called mini ice-age. There are credible accounts (Pepys for example) that Summers were almost cancelled, with snow laying in July, and severe Winter freeze ups with fairs held on the solidly frozen river Thames. A century later the climate had warmed to what we would call normal. Doesn't that count as an equivalent precedent?

2) Having made that claim (unprecedented) they match it with absolute certainty to atmospheric CO2 pollution. THAT is where there must be an element of assumption.

I sometimes find it difficult to differentiate between the Middle Ages belief that the almighty was sending a warning to mankind to mend its ways, and many of the claims of the modern global warming people, who use it as a substitute religion.

Serious question .... how would the scientists who carried out this latest research explain the clear century later warming precedent of the past, when they can't hold CO2 pollution as responsible?

It is certainly disingenous for the politicians to use this in their election strategy. As a matter of fact, both parties should agree to leave this subject out of the campaigns. Then we might make a deal on it if it's so urgent. There should be a secret commission to solve the problem.

They called it the "Dark Ages" for good reason. And going back 7000 years, the natural warming allowed for a thriving human populace. Some warming helps crop yields and allows multiple plantings of crops. Average lifespan of buildings is less than 100 years. So, change building codes if you wish.

Warming may actually save lives and create new habitat for animals. For those Darwinists in the crowd, you might see a new and improved polar bear in a hundred years. One that could swim longer distances and survive in warmer climates. The polar bears here at the LA Zoo enjoy laying out in the hot sun...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum